Kangaroo Law in California: BILL NO SB 880, legalisation of kangaroo products

Latest news: the bill to allow kangaroo products into California has been passed in the state’s Senate. It must still be passed in the lower house and signed off by the governator.

This information is from the official report by the California senate. The Sustainability Party of Australia supports the proposed changes to the law, which would remove the ban on the sale of kangaroo products in California. Kangaroo meat is better for you than beef because it contains almost no fat. It also tastes better. Kangaroos do not emit methane - a powerful greenhouse gas. Cows do. They do not compact and erode the fragile Australian soil with hard hooves. Cows do. Cows also rip grass out by the roots and destroy fragile riparian ecosystems. Harming the Australian kangaroo industry reinforces the cattle and sheep industry, which simply isn't suited to our environment. Sustainable agriculture in Australia will require a move away from European farming practices. Contrary to claims by animal liberation groups, kangaroos are not endangered. The export of sustainably harvested kangaroo meat is saving bears, whales and seals from being eaten. Kangaroo meat accounts for almost one half of our exports to Russia, where the hungry locals cannot get enough of the cheap, high quality meat. The recent decline in numbers is due to a major drought in Australia, not overharvesting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
| Senator Darrell Steinberg, Chair
| 2007-2008 Regular Session
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Section 653o of the Penal Code prohibits the importation, possession with intent to sell, and the sale in California of products made from several species, including polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, feral horse, dolphin, porpoise, Spanish lynx, or elephant. Existing law allows the sale of crocodile and alligator parts or products until January 1, 2010. Violations of this section are a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $1000-$5000 or 6 months in jail.

PROPOSED LAW
This bill would remove the criminal penalty for the importation, possession with intent to sell, and the sale of kangaroo products made from those species of kangaroo that are not listed under the federal endangered species act or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The supporters make the following arguments:

According to the author and many supporters, the current
criminal code prohibition against selling products made from
kangaroo leather should be repealed in order to make these
products legally available in California. The author believes
that the bill would allow California to continue to prohibit the
sale of products made from species of kangaroos that are listed
as threatened or endangered under the federal endangered species
act.

The author, joined by several supporters, also contends that
the current law has caused many retailers not to sell kangaroo
products and that other retailers are exposing themselves to
liability because they do not fully understand the California
law. The author and many business sector supporters argue that
internet sales of kangaroo products to California purchasers
makes the current law unfair and unnecessary. The author adds
that California law enforcement officers use a boot made from
kangaroo. (Staff note: The possession of kangaroo products is
not prohibited.)

Many supporters argue that the current prohibition is
intended to apply only to endangered species. The California
Retailers Association identified what it contends is an
ambiguity in the present statute in that the entire genus of
kangaroos is included in the existing law and not just those
species that are endangered.

They also argue that an ongoing lawsuit against retailers
under the state's unfair business practices statute created
unnecessary litigation expenses to defend against the lawsuit
since the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of the
defendants. (Staff note: This assertion is premature since the
case is still pending before the California Supreme Court and
plaintiffs in that case have informed staff that oral arguments
are scheduled for June.)

Other supporters from the sports sector point out that
retailers are losing sales to millions of potential soccer
players since kangaroo skin reportedly makes for superior soccer
shoes.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The opposition arguments fall into the following categories:

The purpose of the California law is not only to protect
endangered species, but also to protect species that society
determines should not be hunted for specific reasons. California
has had its current policy in effect for approximately 35 years,
and the supporters see no reason to backslide by legitimizing
what they consider inhumane practices. Wildlife protection laws
sometimes prohibit practices considered abhorrent by society.
Some opponents point to the prohibition of the importation of
seal products from Canada. Seals are not endangered, but the
Marine Mammal Protection Act factored in the cruelty involved in
their killing as part of the prohibition. Related provisions
prohibit the importation of marine mammals which were pregnant
when taken, nursing or less than 8 months old at the time of
taking, or taken inhumanely.

The opposition does not agree that the present statute is
ambiguous. Many opponents believe that the entire genus of
kangaroo needs to be included in order to protect the species
that are endangered or threatened or closely resemble those
listed species. They add that the continued prohibition on the
sale of kangaroo skins and meat is the only way to ensure that
protected species and species that are not hunted in certain
jurisdictions will not have their survival put in jeopardy and
their skins accidentally sold in California. One example, from
United Animal Nations, is that in Queensland, the Western Gray
Kangaroo is not allowed to be killed, but it can be mistaken for
the Eastern Grey, which is allowed to be hunted

Kangaroos are hunted in the wild, and are not domestic
species. Their numbers are in decline in their natural habitat,
a condition caused in part by a long-term drought in Australia.
Several opposition letters cited a finding by the Department of
Environment and Heritage to the effect that kangaroo populations
are the lowest they have been in a decade and less than half of
what they were in 2001. Another report provided by the
opposition states that because of the increased demand for
kangaroo meat, that kangaroos are at their lowest level since
monitoring began 28 years ago. Since kangaroos are hunted at
night, it is not always possible to distinguish between the
legal species to hunt and those that are protected..

Kangaroo hunting is barbaric toward the young (called
"joeys") who are decapitated or killed with a blow to the head
if their mother is killed by a hunter. This practice is a
regulatory requirement in Australia.

Legalizing kangaroo imports in California will create
additional market pressure that will lead to further declines in
the kangaroo population in Australia and an increase in exports
not only of skins, but of kangaroo meat.

COMMENTS
The numbers of supporters and opponents to this bill makes it
apparent that sentiments on both sides run strong.

This is the third consecutive session that this bill has been
before the Legislature. In 2005, AB 734 (Firebaugh) failed
passage in this Committee after the author refused to accept
amendments that would have required the Director of Fish and
Game to certify that specified improvements in hunting practices
in Australia were adopted. In 2006, AB 734, which is identical
to this measure, failed in this Committee.

The Ongoing Litigation . The California Supreme Court has
accepted for oral argument a case brought by an animal
protection group against a retailer who sold kangaroo products
purchased from the Adidas corporation. The trial court granted
summary judgment for the defendants and that decision was upheld
on appeal. Both decisions held that the state criminal provision
that would be amended by SB 880 was pre-empted by the federal
endangered species act.

On appeal the appellants, joined by the Attorney General, are
arguing that a savings clause in the federal endangered species
act applies to state laws and provides that state laws may be
more restrictive than federal laws and any such state laws may
remain in effect.

The practical effect of the litigation could be that the author
and supporters may obtain through the pending litigation what
they seek to obtain through this legislation.